Summary of findings 14. Fluoxetine compared to mianserin.
| Fluoxetine compared to mianserin | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with depression Settings: in‐ and outpatients Intervention: fluoxetine Comparison: mianserin | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Mianserin | Fluoxetine | |||||
|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) |
593 per 1000 | 538 per 1000 (282 to 776) | OR 0.80 (0.27 to 2.38) | 53 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
|
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) |
The mean endpoint score in the intervention groups was 0.43 standard deviations higher (0.38 lower to 1.23 higher) | 128 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This corresponds to a small effect according to conventions proposed by Cohen 1992 | ||
| Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ | 362 per 1000 | 263 per 1000 (93 to 560) | OR 0.63 (0.18 to 2.25) | 93 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ | 74 per 1000 | 154 per 1000 (30 to 522) | OR 2.27 (0.38 to 13.63) | 53 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ | 148 per 1000 | 154 per 1000 (38 to 450) | OR 1.05 (0.23 to 4.70) | 53 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Limitations in studies designs: no details on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment. Blinding stated but not tested.
2 Only one study included in the analysis and less than 100 patients.